ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2026
A Benchmark for Entropy Estimators.
Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed the performance of several entropy estimators for numerical time series and symbolic data on non-trivial one-dimensional dynamical systems whose Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy is known with certified accuracy: recent computer-assisted proof techniques provide rigorous values together with explicit error bounds. We considered four classes of interval maps, including piecewise expanding maps with and without a Markov partition and an intermittent Pomeau-Manneville map, and generated long orbits for each system. We then compared the certified entropy with the output of widely used estimators: Approximate Entropy, Sample Entropy, Permutation Entropy, a symbolic Plug-In estimator of the entropy rate, and the Non-Sequential Recursive Pair Substitution (NSRPS) method (the latter two with Grassberger-type bias correction). Our experiments reveal substantial, dynamics-dependent differences in accuracy and robustness. In particular, Approximate Entropy and the symbolic methods (Plug-In and NSRPS) consistently yielded estimates within the rigorous error bars across all systems, whereas Sample Entropy showed a marked systematic underestimation, and Permutation Entropy exhibited large biases, especially for expanding maps without a Markov partition. The resulting benchmark provides a quantitative testbed for evaluating entropy estimation techniques in deterministic dynamical systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.